How long will Californians Tolerate This?

[coolusername2007]

Also I noticed that in the Richards v. Harris complaint that what CGF argues for in the second claim for relief that mentions 12031e is "to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment", but not to be free from unreasonable searches. There is a big difference. We are confronted first and often with the issue of searches; not seizures. So, Richards v. Harris seems to not directly address the issue in this aspect also.

Good catch on that Sons. I missed that the first time I read the complaint awhile back. The search is every bit as violative as the seizure.

 

[coolusername2007]

I love it when my name is taken in vain here...

I carry a loaded firearm in school zones. I want everyone to be able to.

Unloaded carry isn't the right. Those who think they're being uncompromising but carry a pile of parts in their holsters are compromising.

-Gene

As do I. At least we agree that unloaded open carry isn't a right, its an infringement. The difference is that I want that without more infringements (i.e., permission slips) and I want it first. But not because my way is better or more pure or anything like that, but because from this layman's viewpoint it is the more direct path when one considers the fact that CCW shall issue permitting has never been achieved through litigation, but only through the legislative process.

 

[coolusername2007]

Attorney Jon Birdt hired for this case. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6808147&postcount=77

 

[oc4ever]

Complaint kinda quick?

Boy talking about no messing around. It is like the lawyer has these these pre-made, just fill in the (plaintiff's' and defendants) name . I don't pretend to know squat about the law, but I think you have to notify the City with a claim form and give them a certain amount of time to respond before you file any legal action. The complaint does not have any case number on it, so maybe that is what is happening. This is definitely one way to modify a LEOs behavior, but not one that will make OC'ers very well liked in Upland.

I really can't think of a OC encounter going much worse, short of injury or arrest. Their was enough civil rights violations by the police officers in 10 minutes to keep a attorney quite busy. I also wrote the Acting Chief about the Officer's negative and abusive conduct, and received the same letter as posted above in return. His response may not be what some city attorney would like, but give him credit for cutting to the chase to correct the behavior. That is what a good manager should do. He can't change what happened, but he can make damn sure to discipline the employees ("knuckleheads") involved and set a course of corrective action(and consequences) for the future. That is a hell of a lot more than you would get from LAPD.

 

[coolusername2007]

Yeah, I don't know if this is the best lawyer to bring this case. As pointed out enough times on CGN there are a number of misspellings, name errors, etc. One also pointed out that the complaint has been posted online but not actually filed yet. To me it looks like they are looking for a quick settlement. My concern is that there is evidence (Officer Duran's personal recording of the encounter) that they won't have access to for quite some time, if ever.

Having said those things, I am really glad this action is being taken - its about time. UOC has been talked about long enough, numerous DA and departmental memos have been issued, officer "training" conducted, tons of talk on this forum and on CGN, untold number of news stories both statewide and national, debate in the Assembly and Senate in Sacramento, the issue discussed by the judge in the Peruta case, debates, conferences, etc., and don't forget the favorable action in Sam Wolynack's (sp?) case and more. These officers blatantly violated the law and law abiding citizens' rights - not new rights, but rights that have existed since this nation's founding. They need to be held accountable - big. Its long past time to send a very strong, clear message that its time to start acting like the professionals they love to claim they are. Take their money and lots of it, and take their qualified immunity and hold them personally accountable. There just isn't any excuse any longer regardless of the acting chief's email letter.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

[SNIP]
Having said those things, I am really glad this action is being taken - its about time. UOC has been talked about long enough, numerous DA and departmental memos have been issued, officer "training" conducted, tons of talk on this forum and on CGN, untold number of news stories both statewide and national, debate in the Assembly and Senate in Sacramento, the issue discussed by the judge in the Peruta case, debates, conferences, etc., and don't forget the favorable action in Sam Wolynack's (sp?) case and more. These officers blatantly violated the law and law abiding citizens' rights - not new rights, but rights that have existed since this nation's founding. They need to be held accountable - big. Its long past time to send a very strong, clear message that its time to start acting like the professionals they love to claim they are. Take their money and lots of it, and take their qualified immunity and hold them personally accountable. There just isn't any excuse any longer regardless of the acting chief's email letter.

Agree. They are without excuse for how this search was conducted.

 

[cato]

...CCW shall issue permitting has never been achieved through litigation, but only through the legislative process.

We never had a recognized actionable Federal RKBA before too. I despise permits and I don't enjoy conceals carry and I love OC. But I understand the constitutional jurisprudence at play when trying to establish RKBA in relation to how other rights are treated by the courts. I don’t agree with how many Rights are treated but unless one is in open rebellion we must operate within the system as it has developed over 200 years.I trust Alan Gura's play book (and other coalition attorneys) to guide us through the field of land mines which is the Federal Court system. I don't trust anyone else to just start ambulance chasing 1983 RKBA cases. The 4th A and 1st A issues are clear and the complaint, mistakes and typos aside, should not have gone further. And posting an unfiled complaint with all those errors is likely to do nothing more then let the other side know its now amature hour for the RKBA.

 

[cato]

Good luck to all of us. The Gov. will always argue the other side of the coin. I trust Alan Gura and team SAF/CGF to argue our side. Nobody else has achieved their success. Especially not attorneys disciplined for their conduct.

---

The issue is the same. A private person conducting business is you and me. Whether pursuing life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness as an individual or individual doing business, it is our unalienable right.The courts may use Biswell as they did on individuals (not businesses) in U.S. v. Ortiz 422 U.S. 891, U.S. v. Aukai 497 F.3d 955, U.S. v. Raub 637 F.2d 1205, and U.S. v. Schafer 461 F.2d 856.Also you will have to deal with Camara v. Municipal Court 387 US 523 in which SCOTUS stated,"In assessing whether the public interest demands creation of a general exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, the question is not whether the public interest justifies the type of search in question, but whether the authority to search should be evidenced by a warrant, which in turn depends in part upon whether the burden of obtaining a warrant is likely to frustrate the governmental purpose behind the search."The Government will argue, "It will frustrate the enforcement of 12031a if we need a warrant to perform a 12031e inspection."Good luck with this.

 

[cato]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=52_27JeI9YY

 

[cato]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6810428&postcount=96

Attorney Jon Birdt hired for this case. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6808147&postcount=77

 

[pullnshoot25]

"Consensual dialog" ? Is that how you perceived it ? I heard nothing but two people speaking over and past each other. That was no dialog. I have engaged in dialogs with LEOs during detainments, and had been able to do so in a civil manner designed to get the LEO to justify his/her actions and provide statutory authority. And I have done this surrounded by LEOs; physically restrained; and even while handcuffed. As have so many others.

Officer safety will always be their fallback position. Gotta get used to it.

I just fail to see how venting one's frustrations at a "not around here, you don't" sort of cop is in any way productive.

As the vast majority of people who frequent this board have come to realize, when it comes to LEO contacts, you have to be prepared to roll with the punches....and get everything recorded.

When one is subjugated to that kind of abuse, it is only natural to retaliate or protest in some way. I did it once too and I still do it to some extent, just in a more controlled manner. This is probably his first time nearly getting shot by an abusive ******* and he was under a lot of stress. Cut him some slack, he has learned a lot as it is.

 

[KBCraig]

"Consensual dialog" ? Is that how you perceived it ? I heard nothing but two people speaking over and past each other. That was no dialog.

"Consensual dialog" is a legal distinction, meaning there was no detainment in effect. It doesn't imply effective two-way communication; you're correct, there was none in this encounter.

 

[hoffmang]

Good catch on that Sons. I missed that the first time I read the complaint awhile back. The search is every bit as violative as the seizure.

At to 12031(e)'s unconstitutionality it matters not whether the facts were a search or a seizure. That the illicit search lead to an illicit seizure just goes to show how strongly unconstitutional both were and therefor 12031(e) is. In the Haynie case, that it's a seizure makes it even easier to win and therefor strike 12031(e) completely. To be clear, a win on this issue in Haynie would end the ability for law enforcement to force open carriers to submit to a loaded check absent other probable cause. And luckily, the politics of Haynie give us a better chance of having the judge rule intellectually instead of emotionally - even if he or she is unfriendly to the Second Amendment.

-Gene

 

[Sons of Liberty]

At to 12031(e)'s unconstitutionality it matters not whether the facts were a search or a seizure. That the illicit search lead to an illicit seizure just goes to show how strongly unconstitutional both were and therefor 12031(e) is. In the Haynie case, that it's a seizure makes it even easier to win and therefor strike 12031(e) completely. To be clear, a win on this issue in Haynie would end the ability for law enforcement to force open carriers to submit to a loaded check absent other probable cause. And luckily, the politics of Haynie give us a better chance of having the judge rule intellectually instead of emotionally - even if he or she is unfriendly to the Second Amendment.

-Gene

The seizure was the result of an LEO not understanding and misapplying the assault rifle laws. To show that 12031(e) was not the cause of the seizure, what would have happened if the LEO properly applied the assault rifle laws...there would not have been a seizure. According to the government, the LEO would have just been completing a justifiable and codified inspection to determine compliance with 12031(a). Since you are not attacking 12031(a), the court will conclude that it was a reasonable search as they have before (People v. DeLong). 12031(e) stands and now you have just tempered the steel used to shackle our 2A rights.

But I say, give it a shot Gene! Really, I mean that!

 

[hoffmang]

The seizure was the result of an LEO not understanding and misapplying the assault rifle laws.

Ahem. How do you seize something without first searching for it? Have you read the facts of the case?

And the state court decision isn't binding in Federal Court under a 4A analysis. You really need to read more before opining on Federal 4A matters.

-Gene

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Ahem. How do you seize something without first searching for it? Have you read the facts of the case?

And the state court decision isn't binding in Federal Court under a 4A analysis. You really need to read more before opining on Federal 4A matters.

-Gene

You missed the point. The state will argue and the court will agree that 12031(e) is just a "reasonable" search. Because your brief is not addressing the constitutionality of 12031(a), the courts have no duty to address the issue.

I did read the facts as presented by your brief.

I did not say People v. DeLong was binding on the Federal courts. I said that this court will conclude the same as courts in the past have: "This is a reasonable search." The court's reasoning in People v. DeLong has stood for over 40 years.

In light of DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, you have a better shot at knocking 12031(e) down by a 2A claim against the code it supports (i.e., 12031(a)).

 

[hoffmang]

Sons,

No. Federal Fourth Amendment precedent is different than State of California 4th amendment precedent. Federal precedent wins. Also, no one has ever challenged the reasoning in Delong in Federal Court. The one time it has come up, the Federal District Judge said he didn't agree with it but it wasn't germane to his holding.

There is always a risk that an anti-gun judge tries to ignore the 4A precedent on this issue, but that doesn't change that 12031(a)'s constitutionality has nothing to do with wether (e) can allow a police officer to violate the 4th amendment. We have only filed a complaint - not any legal argument on this point. I would suggest that since CGF has a pretty damn good court track record, you could give some deference to me explaining the way the law works here...

-Gene

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Sons,

[SNIP]... you could give some deference to me explaining the way the law works here...

-Gene

Just curious...are you a lawyer? Ever go to law school?

 

[hoffmang]

Just curious...are you a lawyer? Ever go to law school?

No.

Won my first Federal Lawsuit at 20.

Overturned export controls on Cryptography at 22.

Filed and won about 5 Federal lawsuits at my second startup - mostly high stakes public policy copyright cases.

So far, have forced 2 governments (DC, Sacramento) to change gun laws to conform with the Constitution. Won 10+ criminal gun cases as part of the strategy team. Have assisted in 4 civil rights (guns) settlements in favor of plaintiffs. Won a state PRA case on 2A related records. Oh, and invented and defended both the mechanical design and legal underpinnings of the bullet button - not to mention personally getting a CA DOJ rulemaking struck as an underground regulation and forcing CA DOJ to release 219 firearms.

I've done next to nothing as you can see.

You?

-Gene

 

[Sons of Liberty]

No.

Won my first Federal Lawsuit at 20.

Overturned export controls on Cryptography at 22.

Filed and won about 5 Federal lawsuits at my second startup - mostly high stakes public policy copyright cases.

So far, have forced 2 governments (DC, Sacramento) to change gun laws to conform with the Constitution. Won 10+ criminal gun cases as part of the strategy team. Have assisted in 4 civil rights (guns) settlements in favor of plaintiffs. Won a state PRA case on 2A related records. Oh, and invented and defended both the mechanical design and legal underpinnings of the bullet button - not to mention personally getting a CA DOJ rulemaking struck as an underground regulation and forcing CA DOJ to release 219 firearms.

I've done next to nothing as you can see.

You?

-Gene

So, the answer to both questions was "no".